How to Brief a Case with Citation 486 A.2d 102, 105 (Me.1984)?

Question from Ashad, How to Brief a Case with Citation 486 A.2d 102, 105 (Me.1984)?

Answer from AI:

Case Identification

Shackford & Gooch, Inc. et al v. Town of Kennebunk, et al, 486 A.2d 102, 105 (Me. 1984). The decision was rendered by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Parties

• Plaintiffs: Shackford & Gooch, Inc. (owner of a fish market) and B & B Coastal Enterprises, Inc., operator of Bartley’s Dockside Restaurant.
• Defendants: Town of Kennebunk and its Zoning Board of Appeals.

Facts

1. The restaurant occupied a building that did not meet the town’s setback requirements, making it a non‑conforming structure under the Kennebunk Zoning Ordinance.
2. In March 1982 the owners obtained a written permit to construct exterior stairs.
3. Simultaneously, the town’s building inspector verbally assured the owners that a proposed vertical addition (a second‑story extension) could be built without obtaining a variance.
4. The owners relied on that assurance, began construction, and the town later ordered a stop‑work order, claiming the addition violated the zoning ordinance.
5. The owners sued, arguing the town was equitable estopped from enforcing the ordinance because of the inspector’s assurances.

Procedural History

• The trial court entered judgment for the town, enforcing the zoning ordinance.
• The plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court of York County, which affirmed.
• The case was then taken to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, which issued the opinion cited above.

Issues Presented

1. Does a vertical addition to an already non‑conforming building constitute an expansion of the non‑conformity that requires a variance?
2. Can a municipality be equitable estopped from enforcing its zoning ordinance based solely on unauthorized verbal assurances from a municipal officer?

Holding

1. Yes. A vertical addition that increases the non‑conformity of a structure triggers the need for a variance.
2. No. The town is not estopped; verbal assurances that contradict the written ordinance do not bind the municipality.

Rule of Law

• Non‑conforming structures may not be expanded without a variance when the expansion enlarges the deviation from zoning standards.
• Equitable estoppel against a municipality requires a clear, authorized representation that the municipality can be held to; informal verbal statements by an officer are insufficient.

Reasoning

• The court emphasized the purpose of zoning ordinances: to regulate land use and preserve community planning goals. Allowing owners to enlarge non‑conforming structures without a variance would erode those goals.
• Regarding estoppel, the court noted that municipalities act through their legislative bodies and official regulations. An individual officer’s informal promise does not create a binding municipal representation, especially when it conflicts with the written ordinance. The court cited prior Maine cases (e.g., Martin v. Prudential Insurance Co., 389 A.2d 28 (Me. 1978)) to support the principle that estoppel requires a formal, authorized commitment.

Significance

• The decision clarifies that any physical expansion of a non‑conforming building—whether horizontal or vertical—must comply with the variance process.
• It underscores the importance for property owners to obtain written, authorized approvals before proceeding with construction, rather than relying on informal assurances.
• Municipalities are reminded to ensure their staff communicate consistently with the written ordinance to avoid litigation.

For the full text of the opinion, see the Maine Judicial Branch’s case archive: Shackford & Gooch v. Town of Kennebunk (486 A.2d 102).

Note: This brief provides a general overview and does not constitute legal advice. If you are dealing with a similar zoning or non‑conforming‑structure issue, consult a licensed attorney familiar with Maine land‑use law.